Register here

Author Topic: Operational Requirements.  (Read 3091 times)

Offline CNH

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 211
Operational Requirements.
« on: March 27, 2011, 02:46:13 am »
Slightly esoteric one this, but if there are those among you who worked on the projects in days gone by, would you refer to an Operational Requirement as O.R.1139, OR.1139, or OR1139.

Modern usage is to drop the full stops, but what would the contemporary usage be?

Online AM

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 193
Re: Operational Requirements.
« Reply #1 on: October 30, 2015, 12:37:28 am »
Hi all

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 20593
Re: Operational Requirements.
« Reply #2 on: October 30, 2015, 04:34:12 am »
Excellent work my dear AM.

Offline Schneiderman

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 939
Re: Operational Requirements.
« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2015, 01:17:09 am »
Thanks for the tabulation, very useful.

In answer to the original post I checked through a few Vickers Armstrong Supermarine blueprints and the only one I could find that was relevant was for the Type 553 in 1953.  That proved to be unhelpful as on one drawing they have written ER.134T and on the other E.R.134T.

Online CJGibson

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 970
  • I didn't get where I am today by...
Re: Operational Requirements.
« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2015, 01:59:29 am »
I've seen every permutation: ER.134, E.R.134, ER134, even a ER-134 (I use ER.134 only as an example here). It's a bit like VC10, I've seen VC-10, VC.10 and V.C.10 in the same file but I always use VC10.
For Reqs, Specs and MoA designations I tend to use AA.NNN and stick with it. If that's wrong then at least I'm consistently wrong. So, pick one and stick with it.

Chris

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3252

Offline newsdeskdan

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 333
  • AWACS Sky Keeper: "Mage 2, bandit down."
Re: Operational Requirements.
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2015, 02:28:34 pm »
And for anyone interested, on the original document of OR.1139, the Blue Streak requirement of August 8, 1955, it's written 'O.R./1139'.
« Last Edit: November 06, 2015, 12:13:31 am by newsdeskdan »
“This modular concept we have called MUSTARD (Multi Unit Space Transport and Recovery Device), and has been the subject of considerable detailed work.” Tom Smith, BAC Preston

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 768
Re: Operational Requirements.
« Reply #7 on: June 05, 2016, 03:44:58 am »
I can add some information for ASR.390.

A draft was written in March 1967 for a Multi-Purpose Training Aircraft to replace the Varsity. It was to train pilots, navigators, Air Electronics Officers and Air Engineers. An “off the shelf” aircraft was desired to try and avoid development costs but a turboprop was specified. The first aircraft was required in service by June 1972.

The ASR called for a normal crew of 2 in cockpit and capacity for 7 staff/students in the main compartment.
Pilot Role – 2 pilots and removable utility rearward facing seats in main compartment for supernumerary crew if required.
Navigator Role – 1 pilot, 1 Staff Navigator and 4 students
AEO/ Air Engineer Role – 1 pilot, 1 Staff Navigator, 1 Staff Engineer, 1 Staff AEO, 2 student AEOs and 2 student engineers

The maximum speed range was 250kts TAS at SL to 0.6M at 25,000ft. Fuel capacity was to be provided for: 1,300nm stage length with full fuel reserves and payload; two 2hr sorties (1hr general handling at 10,000ft and 1hr local circuit flying below 2,000ft) without refuelling plus fuel reserves; air endurance of 6hrs.

The Air Ministry had the Handley Page Jetstream in mind for the role. The Ministry of Technology (MinTech) suggested the HSA Dominie, Argosy or Avro 748 as possible alternatives. They were sceptical development would be cheap, the equipment integration costs would require development funding. They estimated the Jetstream's AUW would have to be increased from 12,500lb, beyond the 14,000lb suggested for the American C-10A variant, to about 15,500lb, and they thought external fuel tanks might be required.
There was argument over whether a turboprop offered sufficient performance for navigator training and the recent introduction of the Dominie for the navigation training role seemed to meet or exceed ASR.390 in everything but the capacity for 7 in the cabin. In the event ASR.390 was cancelled and it seems Handley Page were never asked to make formal proposals.
Eventually in February 1972 the RAF did indeed order 26 Jetstream 201s as multi-engine trainers as the Jetstream T.1 to OR.398.

Source: AVIA 65/2197
« Last Edit: June 05, 2016, 08:56:27 am by Hood »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 12939
Re: Operational Requirements.
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2016, 04:35:42 am »
I've seen every permutation: ER.134, E.R.134, ER134, even a ER-134 (I use ER.134 only as an example here). It's a bit like VC10, I've seen VC-10, VC.10 and V.C.10 in the same file but I always use VC10.
For Reqs, Specs and MoA designations I tend to use AA.NNN and stick with it. If that's wrong then at least I'm consistently wrong. So, pick one and stick with it.

And for anyone interested, on the original document of OR.1139, the Blue Streak requirement of August 8, 1955, it's written 'O.R./1139'.

To be on the safe side, I tend to stick to what appears in official documents. And when in doubt or when several versions co-exist, I go for what was widespread at the time in said country. All British publications used dots (.) and almost never hyphens (-) in designations, exactly the opposite of American publications, which used the hyphens, even for foreign types. So as a rule (and with only a few exceptions when backed by official or company documents) I do just that: dots for British designations, hyphens for American ones, because that's almost always right. As for whether the letters prefixes should be separated or agglomerated (O. R. 134, O.R.134 or OR.134?) I believe the first one should be the correct one, but the other two are the most widely used, partly because traditional typography implied that the space was only a half-space, which unfortunately cannot easily be translated into modern post-internet typing. But beware: the two may not quite bring the same results in a search engine, and it is certainly wise to use quotes (") and boolean terms such as (OR) for more satisfactory results.

Offline Hood

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 768
Re: Operational Requirements.
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2016, 09:02:57 am »
Small additional snippet.
OR.398 finally resulted in the selection of the Jetstream for the navigation training role also had a series of possible alternatives. It seems in 1970 there was interest in the Beech 90 to fulfil the role of Varsity replacement.
The Air Ministry were keen to find out more about the RAAF's problems of corrosion with the Beech, it seems the Air Ministry were wary after corrosion problems encountered with the C-130 fleet.